is it brave to stand up against a superior opponent??
To start with, I'd like to applaud you for maintaining a somewhat civil tongue.
-- I'd think it a lot more sensible if you just got an iota of real learning. Try reading up on the history of Saddam, how he got to rule Iraq and how he maintained that rule. Better still, read .. will garner you more respect here.
Your anger appears not to allow you to see what I said. Rather you are building lots of strawmen based on your whims and desires. Nothing to do with what I actually said.
I did not say anything about the history of Saddam etc. I neither think he, nor the nations that supported him, where great. Infact, I'd be all for putting on trial all those that have supported him and his. Would you be up for seeing the likes of Saddams henchmen in the dock? how about the British and American etc.. politicians etc.. guilty of supporting him and his crimes?
I did however talk about courage, and standing up against a superior foe.
Further, I am not after any respect either from you or anyone else on this forum. If you are, then I would suggest maintaining a civil tongue as a start, and then dealing with what is actually being said.
-- Why do you make the mistake of assuming I am angry? All I feel for obtuse people like you is amused pity. ... don't have a clue about the matter in hand.
I gave you the benefit of assuming it is anger that is speaking, and that you do not always behave in this crass manner. It would indeed be a poor human being that relied on bad language, or one that used it so much that it became second nature.
--Well, seeing as your viewpoint seems to be based on lots of imagination, I can't say I'm surprised. I don't have a problem debating with others, in fact it's fun. It is you that has failed to debate, simply turned to personal attacks. You have failed to answer any of the points I raised either originally or in response to your drivel.
The view I expressed is that it takes courage to stand-up against an opposition that is superior to oneself.. whether it is a Allied soldier, or indeed a Jihadi.
To give an example, if an Allied soldier where to have a gun and a home made bomb, and with only those go up against a vastly superior Jihadi force.. I'd say that that soldier is very brave. Similarly, I'd say if you switch the scenario around, and say Jew, then the Jew is very brave, or the Hindu is very brave etc.. I am sure you get the point.
Why is it so difficult for you to admit the same is true for the Jihadi in the same predicament?
There is little imagination required to come up with such a view, merely the assumption that people all over the world are pretty much the same.
This view, has resulted in many colourful words to describe me.
Yet, you play the wounded party. The facts, ie. your posts, clearly show you to be the aggressor on this front. Something I suspect you acknowledge, since you have toned down this particular post.
--Strange that you say you feel so strongly about the matter under discussion, but are whinging about "bad language" rather than formulating any reasoned response. Run out of soundbites to repeat? I'm sure the people of Iraq would much rather have bad language than bombs.
I'd agree with the latter, I am sure most people would prefer bad language to bombs. However, many people do not have a choice. Most such people are the weakest and poorest.
This ofcourse does not excuse one from using bad language in a discussion.
If you are saying that the choice you are giving me is to either be abused by you verbally, or to be bombed by you.. then ofcourse I choose the verbal abuse.
But if I have a choice of not being verbally abused, then ofcourse I would take that. I am sure most people would.
--And that's the crux of the matter - I think you don't actually have any opinion based on reasoning or fact, just some whimsy based on what others have led you to believe. If you did you might be able to actually debate the issue, which you have not.
Then this should be pretty straight forward for you.
Though for one who claims to be so good a debating I am surprised that you use so much bad language.. I would have thought that this is pretty much a first step to not use bad language.
If I understand you correctly, you claim to have lots of experience on the debating front, and do not believe any old thing that is put under your nose.
I wonder why you use the sources of information you have mentioned so far.. are they credible? without propaganda? not selling a view point?
I find it surprising that on the one hand you stick to what are obviously biased sources of information, while berating me for using similarly biased sources, as you have claimed. I have indicated that whatever sources you are pointing to, I do not use. I have mentioned to you both counterpunch and medialens as independent sources that I read on occasion.
--It appears that, in debating terms, you are running away with your tail between your legs. ..... I'm far too busy pointing and laughing to even think of the need for physical action.
Then please enjoy the ridiculing of me.
I am sure you are about to get many many more laughs. Though one should keep in mind, that when one is laughing, one does not always see what is actually being said. One's lower self tends to run away with itself.
I am however pleased that I have lightened your day.
--Please tell me exactly which bits are sooooo bad that the omnipotent Ms Bee didn't block the post? .... I can guess where you'll go next, you'll accuse me of being "racist" against Arabs (please note, Arabs are not a race, they are a social group), of being "racists" against Muslims (please note, Muslims are not a race either, it is a political-religeous social order), or of just being a Nazi ...
Just a selection of your language..
" are brave little soldiers standing up to tanks with popguns is both inaccurate and plain stupid.
US Military released to counter some of the male bovine manure spread by idiots like you:
I'm just betting an idiot like you ignores
Please try and pretend the whole Anbar Awakening thing doesn't explode the male bovine manure you're pushing.
Oh, and can you get your head out of your arse whilst you're at it."
You guessed wrong yet again.. why would I say anything about whether you are racist or not.. I know pretty much nothing about you, apart from you use biased information sources, don't like others who do, use bad language, do not deal with what is being said, rather let your imagination run wild.. like to bet a lot, are pretty bad at it, and are not very good at guessing, like 'male bovine manure' .
Please further note, I neither said anything about Arabs or Muslims being a race.
I also have no idea whether or not you are a Nazi, I would guess though that you are not from your above post.
Please try and deal with what I have actually said.
--Thanks but no thanks. And why would I choose Islam over Druidism, Shamanism, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or Bhuddism? ... inability to mount a defence of your slurring the Allied forces in Iraq. A big thanks for the unintentional comedy you have provided.Enjoy!
A little bit of learning should dispel the fairytale bit.
Why Islam and not Christianity etc.. obviously because its the truth.. how can one be sure.. takes a bit of work on ones part to find out. It has much going for it, I have already posted on this point, about evidence that is independent/external to Islam, that points to the truth of it. I am sure you can have a look through my previous efforts and find the relevant post if you are interested.
As to sects, wrong yet again. The invitation is to Islam, not to this that or the other as you quite correctly say. In the Quran, God only gives us one title, Muslim (ie. one who submits to God), He also gives the religion one name, Islam (peace through submission to the will of God). All the other titles, as you indicate, are man made, and muddy the water.
Please note, I do not know too much about the various sects, apart from that the last of the Holy Prophets of God, peace be upon him, prophesised that this would happen. I am sure you have the ability to look up the details for yourself.
Since you appear to be such an expert in sects, I would hope you have had a chance to have read the Quran for yourself.
Now please can we get back to the point in hand. Are those that stand up to a superior opponent, courageous? I'd say yes, even if that one happens to be a Jihadi.
Also, you have me a bit confused. The following are both from you, yet are contradictory..
"Since the "insurgency" started, the Jihadis have also been copiously armed with guns, explosives, RPGs, landmines, satelliet radios, GPS kit, radios and even anti-tank missiles by Syria and Iran. Your pathetic attempt at pretending the Jihadis in Iraq are brave little soldiers standing up to tanks with popguns is both inaccurate and plain stupid.
The majority of the Jihadis killed in Iraq even years after the war were young, impressionable, foreign Arab males, paid a pittance and left to fend for themselves against a well-equipped and well-trained Allied force.They were fed a diet of Islamic propaganda and fairy-tales about being "immortal to the bullets of the Infidel if they were true Muslims". Allied reports talk of busloads of these Jihadis, promised a bounty for every "Yankee" they killed, being given Chinese AKs that couldn't even fire because the factory grease hadn't been cleaned off them, and being sent out to make night ambushes on Allied patrols that had NVGs and could spot them a mile off."